..."floating ice shelves melt and can no longer hold back the land ice". They are kidding right? Good grief.
Volcanoes. Too big to miss. Or sweep under the carpet. Under west Antarctica. Off the coast of Cali. Great sources of heat. But don't tell the IPCC. You'll ruin their day.
Volcanoes. Too big to miss. Or sweep under the carpet. Under west Antarctica. Off the coast of Cali. Great sources of heat. But don't tell the IPCC. You'll ruin their day.
Excellent comments all.Sort of, but only because burning fossil fuels releases CO2. You also have to include the other anthropogenic GHG's like methane, N2O and SF6 to get the full effect. "Exactly predictable" is a bit of an oversell too, since it takes a while for extra heat retained from increased GHE to be distributed around the globe so it can melt polar ice; I'd go with "inevitable" instead.
So, not for nothing, but this acceleration is exactly predictable using fossil fuels as the driver.
But hats off to you CO2 believers, if it IS CO2, it is not reversible.Not in the short term anyway,
You may as well be protesting Plate Tectonics.which is why it's important to restrict emissions to reasonable levels ASAP, so that at least we can slow the accumulation of extra GHG's in the atmosphere. Beyond that, we need to come to terms with the fact that the coastlines are probably doomed. If you own low-lying coastal property, sell now before the market collapses.
You're still as retarded as ever antigoracle.
What geologic mechanism are you talking about? Is there a caldera like yellow stone under there that was created in the last 200 years? Is that how stuff works in your mind?
You're still as retarded as ever antigoracle.
What geologic mechanism are you talking about? Is there a caldera like yellow stone under there that was created in the last 200 years? Is that how stuff works in your mind?
Hey moron, if it is CO2, then explain why the ice is increasing everywhere but where there is geothermal activity.
http://www.climat...amis.jpg
By the way does anyone know what the rise in sea level is each year? It is about the thickness of 5 cent piece or 2.5 mm.
Since the temperatures are in no sense warm enough there to melt anything of measure, the only climate change that could do anything is right at the shore.
geothermal heating contributes to a few millimeters of melting annually, compared to rising sea temperatures which can trigger rates of up to 100 meters each year.
MR166, the rate may be decreasing, that makes sense, the area is expanding disproportionately.Wow, even for you, that's a lot of "unscience" to pack into a single post. And you even threw in a Dunning-Krugerism for good measure. (As the Aussies say) Good on ya!
Just a reminder, I was saying the ice was melting several years ago on this site, and for many years before that.
It is the #1 indicator of climate change, and now, it's also a driver.
Ice recedes, it's harder to drive heat to the poles, etc., sunlight falls directly onto more ocean and land.
Even CO2, that joke of the ages is more important up near the poles, because there is little water vapor, and all the junk we humans produce tends to float Northward.
Tom A, good point, Volcanic activity has been increasing, it makes sense. My favorite mis-truth attatched to this is that Mona Loa, where they set the CO2 standard, is an increasingly active volcano. For some reason they couldn't put it elsewhere...
2.5 mm = 0.000025km x area of the ocean (362000000 km2) = 8150 km3. That's a lot. Think about how much energy that is in melted ice, which is a good metric for change.You got the math wrong (again), you doofus. Why don't you check your calculations? You made enough mistakes that some cancelled out and you still somehow ended up within an order of magnitude of the right answer, which is 3.02x10^20 J/yr, or 0.0185 W/m^2.
8,150,000,000 m3 = 8,150,000,000,000,000 g. To melt this is 334 J/g or 2.7*10^18 Joules.
Joules to Watts in a year is (pi*10^7seconds) = (3*10^-8)* (2.7*10^18) = 8.1*10^11 Watts.
This is
0.002 Watts/m2 Over the area of the Earth (for reference).
0.03Watts/m2 the amount of energy released by Fossil Fuels.
0.2 the amount the Sun fluctuates over 11 years.
We have a Solar mean of ~255Watts/m2 +/-0.2Watts/m2 over 11 year cycles, the +/-0.2 causes noticeable climate impact.Like what .. what "noticeable climate impact" is observable within a typical 11-year solar cycle? Please point it out in the data. In order to fit your "analysis", it'd have to be something like a 0.4 degree C temperature fluctuation. Funny nobody's ever mentioned that before.
Which means to have significant subtle impact any influence would have to be ~10% of 0.2Watts/m2, or 0.03Watts/m2. Which is not only what is happening, but in great agreement.No .. 0.03 W/m^2 is negligible compared to the net imbalance of ~1 W/m^2 in solar radiation due to increased GHE, which has not yet equilibrated.
Now, if it were 2.5 Watts/m2, and this would be ALL OVER THE EARTH! [snip] This would mean about ~7.5 Watts/m2 in the tropics, ~25% of the Earth.No .. the imbalance is a global net average of all factors, it doesn't have local character like you claim.
That much energy would throw the world quite out of any equilibrium, temperatures would ramp up, inarguably.Yep, and that's precisely what's occurring.
So, heat from fossil fuels heating the Earth? Not much. Changing climate before heating the Earth, makes sense. (Ice melts, etc..), we see these effects.How does that make sense? The only way the ice can melt is BECAUSE the earth has been heated.
Now insulation heating the Earth? Well, we need to look at the impacts of relatively homogeneous distribution of CO2, as an insulatorCO2 doesn't really act like an insulator per se, but it's not a worthless analogy, because the net effect of increased GHG's is that the Earth retains more heat, causing a net imbalance of ~1 W/m^2 between heat absorbed from the sun & heat radiated back to space. We see those "effects".
No .. the imbalance is a global net average of all factors, it doesn't have local character like you claim.
CO2 cannot "retain" an indefinite amount of heat.
Why is the melting trend slowing,even reversing, in the N. Hemisphere sea ice volume, even as CO2 keeps going up?I am not sure what you're talking about, the NSIDC says March extent was lowest on record, similar for January.
I didn't actually say there wasn't, but my phrasing was a bit ambiguous. My point was that you can't just assume that because the tropics get more sun, the net imbalance there will be greater (as he did).No .. the imbalance is a global net average of all factors, it doesn't have local character like you claim.There is local character.
AGW specifically claims that certain areas of the globe, namely the poles and ice packs, experience mroe warming than others due to an insulation effect.i.e. NOT more net warming in tropics, as WP claimed.
There is an effect in thermodynamics which explains something, but I bet you don't even know what I'm talking about, and it has nothing to do with man, and everything to do with long-term cycles.Of course I don't know what you're talking about .. you didn't actually say anything there. I'm not optimistic about your command of thermo though, given your failure to account for energy conservation in another recent thread.
Why is the melting trend slowing,even reversing, in the N. Hemisphere sea ice volume, even as CO2 keeps going up?I am not sure what you're talking about, the NSIDC says March extent was lowest on record, similar for January.
https://nsidc.org...re-3.png
But even if you WERE correct, there is an obvious answer to your question, which is: because global climate is complicated, and the polar ice caps are not the only place where the heat goes. Contrary to WP's claims, a bowl of ice-water at equilibrium is a really bad model for the climate system of the Earth. The heat going into melting ice is a tiny fraction of the total ~1 W/m^2 of unbalanced heating.
Wow you can't read.Mea culpa ... I missed the specification of volume instead of extent.
Volume =/= extent.
You should check your facts.Why? What I posted was ALSO correct .. extent has decreased, while volume has apparently increased. The issue with volume is that, as a statistic, it's been available only for a couple of years, so it's hard to put volume measurements in context. (Although it's clear the estimated volume of ice from earlier decades is several times larger than what is being measured now). On the other hand, the trend of decreasing extent has been steady for decades.
Extent is the WORST least reliable indicator.Of what? If you are talking about the total amount of ice at the pole at any given moment, then yes, you're right. However if your trying to track trends in the formation and disappearance of polar sea ice, then it's fine. [ctd]
So, CalibanTurd grabs the lone neuron he shares with the rest of the AGW Chicken Little tards and brays.
Hey CalibanTurd if you can, read up.
http://en.wikiped...tic_Rift
You know, what is really pathetic is; there are only one or two skeptigoons, yet they have many sock-puppets, and they downvote anyone who disagrees with them, even when the math/science is plainThe maths offered by Water_Prophet is so plain its inane, middle school stuff, simple multiplication with immensely naive assumptions. Water_Prophet immature attempt to show CO2 is a "red herring" as he claims was ONLY based on relational concentrations, ie qualitative without any quantitative maths at all, no radiative emission calcs at all - none !
Can it really be they are paid shills? Or simply closed minded and too stupid to incorporate new information? Is there another option?Yes there is another option, they are educated AND you have immense resistance to learning basic heat flow physics with any sort of depth whatsoever !
2.5 mm = 0.000025km x area of the ocean (362000000 km2) = 8150 km3. That's a lot. Think about how much energy that is in melted ice, which is a good metric for change.
8,150,000,000 m3 = 8,150,000,000,000,000 g. To melt this is 334 J/g or 2.7*10^18 Joules.
Joules to Watts in a year is (pi*10^7seconds) = (3*10^-8)* (2.7*10^18) = 8.1*10^11 Watts.
This is
0.002 Watts/m2 Over the area of the Earth (for reference).
0.03Watts/m2 the amount of energy released by Fossil Fuels.
0.2 the amount the Sun fluctuates over 11 years.
This is about right: Not all heat we release from fossil fuels will melt ice, though since it is "waste" heat, it must be dumped with surprising efficiency to colder places-carried by winds/weather.
Now, laughably, the amount AGWers, claim CO2 is producing is 2.5Watts/m2. 10x the amount the Sun produces that noticeably and inarguably changes the Earth.
Pretty cool, huh? All climatic change expressed quantitatively yet intuitively above.
2.5 mm = 0.000025km x area of the ocean (362000000 km2) = 8150 km3. That's a lot. Think about how much energy that is in melted ice, which is a good metric for change.I already showed you that this calculation its wrong, ... yet here you go reposting WITHOUT FIXING THE ERRORS! Your lack of respect for scientific accuracy, not to mention science in general, is appalling.
8,150,000,000 m3 = 8,150,000,000,000,000 g. To melt this is 334 J/g or 2.7*10^18 Joules.
Joules to Watts in a year is (pi*10^7seconds) = (3*10^-8)* (2.7*10^18) = 8.1*10^11 Watts.
This is
0.002 Watts/m2 Over the area of the Earth (for reference).
0.03Watts/m2 the amount of energy released by Fossil Fuels.
0.2 the amount the Sun fluctuates over 11 years.
Oh, I'm sorry DLK/thermodyliar, saying I'm wrong doesn't make it so. It's called order of magnitude analysis for a reason. And I use OOM for a reason. And CO2 is what 3 OOM too small and, talk about appalling.
DLK, are you as pathetic as Mikey, just less verbose?Only if by "fine" you mean "contain careless errors causing them to give a result that is too low by about one order of magnitude."
My calculations are fine.
As far as the mechanisms of CO2, they are two foldReading comprehension fail .. I asked for the mechanism of the GHG, not the "mechanisms of CO2" (which is vague and meaningless in a scientific context). As for the rest of what you wrote, it is a combination of some correct facts, but with your usual twist of including your own personal misinterpretation of their significance. For example, it is true that CO2 most significant absorption band is *centered* near 15 um, but it is only narrow when the optical density is low ... at high optical densities (e.g. in a km-high column of atmosphere), the band is actually quite broad, with over 30,000 individual ro-vibrational lines that need to be accounted for. [ctd]
What CO2 aficionados don't want to hear is that water vapor can also absorb at CO2 frequencies.Another reading comp. fail for you ... I just pointed this out in my previous post. However, as you prove time and time again, just being aware of a particular fact isn't sufficient, you also have to understand fundamental physics sufficiently well to be able to properly interpret its importance.
This has the effect of diminishing CO2 effects further by an exponent of concentration and 0.04, the overlap of the spectrums. This comes out to be 50%. So 50% of CO2 spectrum is absorbed by water vapor anyway. This is of course much stronger in the tropics, it goes down to 20% from WV competition.Case in point .. it doesn't work this way .. CO2 and H2O don't "compete for photons" .. both are constantly absorbing and re-radiating IR energy all the way up through the troposphere. The fact that their spectra overlap actually *enhances* this effect somewhat. Study up, buttercup.
DLK, you obviously have some training in science but I just draw a big box around those 30k fine lines you're whining about,This is your typical response .. you focus on the least important detail in one of my posts, usually with your own personal knack for scientific misinterpretation. Then you act all superior and condescending as if you somehow have a right to comment on my "training in science". It's laughable, because whatever training you may have had yourself, you either forgot or deliberately ignore, persistently making an ass of yourself.
Again, you obviously have some training in science, so why do you lie and twist it?Which of my statements would you characterize as a "lie"? Be specific, and provide a citation to support your claim. Nothing I have posted is the slightest bit controversial to anyone who understands the GHE. Even the few p-chemists classifiable as "AGW skeptics" wouldn't quibble with any of my statements about radiative forcing/GHE mechanism.
You haven't realized you can't intimidate me with physical science. I am the real deal.I have never tried to intimidate .. I post solid, well-sourced science, and explain to the extent that space allows .. you've seen the sources, and ignored them. If you find any of this intimidating, that's your problem.
You've got maybe an undergrad. in physics*shot in the dark* (misses wildly)
and you misconstrueExamples?
You're comment about "not competing" is just a convenient use of english to again, misconstrue. Of course it can compete.Your third reading comp. failure in a row .. I didn't say they couldn't compete .. I said they DON'T & it was clear from context I meant that any such "competition" is irrelevant to the GHE
Quantun mechanics allows and demonstrates the competition even though the over lap is smallThe evidence suggests I understand QM far better than you do, as I have corrected your (egregious) QM errors on at least one previous occasion.
Let MR166 be the judge.I suppose you're hoping (as usual) that you can deflect attention away from the fact that you have once again largely failed to address the scientific content of the discussion, and instead managed to get the focus onto a stupid side-argument about unprovable "scientific credentials" (my fault for rising to the bait this time .. your really are quite effective as a troll).
The problem with me is that I keep thinking you're something other than a shill.
DLK, above expresses perfect understanding.Well, perfect is a bit over the top, but thanks for noticing .. I do try.
It does let other readers see you for what you are.Yes, an expert. You have never rebutted a single one of my posts or points in a convincing matter (i.e. with clear explanations starting from fundamental physics or peer-reviewed literature sources) ... I have debunked your nonsense time and time again, from your water-bowl idiocy, to your goofy CO2 DIY "experiment", to your insipid claims about CO2 being an "insignificant trace gas" .. and I have corrected countless errors of yours, ranging from simple math to incorrect statements of physical principles, along the way
You keep going on about scientific context, but say nothing of it.It's there in almost every post .. your failure to accept/understand it is beyond my control. I guess you like to pretend that if you don't acknowledge your own failures, maybe nobody else will notice them.
Actually I need to change the question. Of the total energy the surface of the earth re-radiates into space how much of it has a 15um wavelength when it starts it's outward trip?You are thinking along the right lines, but it seems like you may be missing a couple of significant points: First, the energy radiated from the Earth's surface has a continuous spectrum determined by its temperature (via the Stefan-Boltzmann law), so what you need to do is add up all the energy emitted over a range of wavelengths .. say from 14.5-15.5 microns. The second point is that, because the radiated energy is absorbed and re-emitted constantly as it passed through the atmosphere, you need to treat each layer of the atmosphere in a similar way to the surface of the earth .. i.e. each one has a continuous emission spectrum determined by its temperature. As the atmos. gets cooler and thinner with altitude, this radiative exchange eventually stops and the radiation is released to space. [ctd]
But hats off to you CO2 believers, if it IS CO2, it is not reversibleBeg Pardon ?
Even some quick table napkin math should confirm this for you..Really ?
BUT, what propagandists don't want you to know is that water vapor also absorbs thermal energy over 100% of the spectrum the Earth re-radiatesYou would know how wrong this accusation is if you ever bothered to read up on the GHE .. any reference you can find will show in detail how broad water absorption is accounted for in the GHE. Nobody is trying to hide any scientific facts about such a well-accepted topic
So, if CO2 is storing 2.5Watts/m2One cannot properly interpret what they do not comprehend ... CO2 is not "storing" radiative energy to any significant extent .. nobody who knows anything about the GHE has ever suggested that it does. You are making a false claim, and then trying to rebut it .. even if you are successful, it's a pointless exercise.
the Sun's fluctuations over 11 year cycles driving climateare you ever going to to tell us *which* climate effects you think are "driven" by the 11-year solar cycle?
CO2 is dispersing more heat in the upper atmosphere, causing cooling, where there is little water vapor.classic scientific "cherry-picking" of facts .. while it's technically true that emission from CO2 does cool the upper atmosphere, that's just the last step along the radiative exchange pathway responsible for the GHE .. you are ignoring the rest of it, which is plain stupid.
Down on Earth, water vapor, mixing effects, etc., are making insulation effects change insignificantlyUtter BS .. you haven't a clue what you are talking about; you have never been able to provide support for that claim ... and while likening the GHE to "increased insulation" isn't really wrong, it's not particularly helpful as an analogy either.
Oh poor CalibanTurd, that bit of reading was too much for your lone neuron.
When you grow a brain you may be able to see the match between the West Antarctic rift and the melting ice.
Then you can look up the ocean current around Antarctica and perhaps understand why the ice is not melting everywhere but the rift.
http://www.climat...elt.html
So, if CO2 is storing 2.5Watts/m2 because of an increase of 135 ppm. Water must be contributing that, plus, roughly an additional ~8Watt/sm2 from it's major bands, plus let's just guestimate 1Watt/m2 over the rest of the spectrum ~40Watts/m2.Yes Water_Prophet's working is preposterous, maths salad without due care & attention, simple multiplications no calculus, nothing at all in line with:-
Which is clearly preposterous.
CO2 is dispersing more heat in the upper atmosphere, causing cooling, where there is little water vapor.As DarkLordKelvin points out & I will add my 2c; its at the end of the flux flow, upper atmosphere has to cool because the flux it was subjected to has reduced as data shows:-
Down on Earth, water vapor, mixing effects, etc., are making insulation effects change insignificantly
Oh, look the clown brigade, here to substancelessly defend the skeptigoon propoganda. Yeah, boys, I'm sure if I read 'em, I'd be cryingWater_Prophet STILL cannot prove ANY of his claims.
Returners
Apr 30, 2015Goodbye NOLA, and TAMPA BAy, and Miami, and Galveston, and Key West, and Houston.
Goodbye even Washington DC.